Updates to Title Reference View

Please note: this message is about the Title Reference View, an advanced, opt-in setting, which is only used by a subset of select users. If you don’t use this view, this announcement can be disregarded.

Today (December 19th 2017) we are announcing the release of an updated Title Reference View. The new Title Reference View merges the previous “combined” and “reference” experiences into a single data-centric view containing full cast and crew credits. While we realize there are some changes between the new and old versions, this new page still provides a condensed, data-centric representation of the title and is based on past surveys and contributor feedback. As part of a larger initiative to modernize our software (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/upcoming-changes-to-several-imdb-features), this page needed to be rebuilt. The older page, while valuable, had major issues impacting its maintainability and overall speed. The new page is now on modern, scalable software which can be improved and expanded over time. For example, the new page is significantly faster, in both page load time and the data itself. Title data is now rapidly published, allowing users the ability to find and update title information as soon as it is available (the old page was typically 2-3 days behind).

While the new page is not exactly the same as the old, we still believe the new page properly represents the data itself. If you notice an issue, please let us know. We will be monitoring this thread to ensure the transition is as smooth as possible.

Here are some frequently asked questions:

What does the new page look like?Here is screenshot. To toggle between the standard title display and the reference page, please update your user preferences as detailed below.

What happened to the Name Reference View?As part of the larger project to modernize our software, we have decided to deprecate the Name Reference View. While the differences between the primary title display and the title reference view are significant, the differences between the name displays were less extreme.

Why didn’t you include User Review detail on the new page?We are actively working to add this information. Check back soon.

Galaxina (1980) distributors: 'Nordic Video (1980) (Finland) (video)'. Video distribution took place some time in the 1980s. The letter S is missing.

Gone with the Wind (1939). 'Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) (1950) (Finland) (theatrical)'. When Gone with the Wind was re-released in 1961 it was distributed by the very same company. That's why there were two years 'Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) (1950) (1961) (Finland) (theatrical)'. Now 1961 is gone.

I see only now that from now on normal members don't have access to info of movies in development any more. Like e.g. 'Race to the South Pole' (Casey Affleck(?), in development since 2013). Why is that? Ar we little children? :-/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2413620/?ref_=nv_sr_1That's what I get when I type in the title. And that's what it says: Note: Because this project is categorized as in development, the data is only available on IMDbPro and is subject to change.Sorry that my native language is not English. With normal members I obviously mean not Pro-members.

The strange thing is that, when you search for Race to the South Pole, as a logged in (non Pro) member, you get that result. Whereas I would expect to access to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2413620/reference which displays more information...(Sorry granted, as I am a non English native as well!)

I can’t speak for the writer you are replying to but I will give you my problems with the layout as it stands.

It has made the editing of the credits a MUCH longer task. Do you contribute to the IMDB pages? How do you add/correct 100+ credits for, say, a TV episode? For some of the older shows this is not unusual. Have a look at all the (uncredited) attributes for the first 3 seasons of Ugly Betty. Most of those needed to be corrected. To me, it seems some people are padding their CV by adding their names to shows. They might have worked on them but they should be marked as (uncredited). However, that’s another story.

To do this and keep track of the changes I use a text file - I have put how I do this earlier in this thread. The new layout formatting does not allow me to easily get a good, usable text file.

The actual layout is fine, and I like it. However, from a contributor’s point of view, it sucks. I want to be able to get a credit list, preferably in (category) alphabetical order as a text file. If you have a better way of doing it using the present layout then please let me know.

This week I noticed that, in the new reference view, two-word attributes in the cast list appear as a single word, with the second word capitalized: (archive footage) displays as (archiveFootage); (credit only) is (creditOnly).

These attributes are correctly stored internally and display correctly in the nonreference view. This appears to be a bug that should be fixed.

Since the site update, there is a problem with the distributors listings. The issue is that the region information that is in the database is ignored. Instead the page shows the region based on the country code of the company. This is quite obvious for companies who distribute the same movie in different countries, for example Arrow who distributed "The Villainess" in the UK and Ireland.

This is the data stored in the database:

And this is how it is shown:

Is this a known error? Or is it supposed to work that way?And, since no company has an order number, why is the distributor list not sorted alphabetically? Oh, and since when is "all media" ignored as an attribute?

When the "new design" came about I started "logging in" and using the reference view setting which was what you'd called the old view. I am VERY sad to see this go...

Various comments have been made of the data feeling squashed by the large panel on the right, and even the barest glance shows say half the width is used in the "menu", leaving an obvious waste of space.

My thoughts that may pacify people on several fronts:

"float:left" the "sidebar" and "float: right" the "main" to return the menu to where the "reference view" users expect it.

Reduce sidebar width (by 100px perhaps?) and give that to main, giving the data on what you're calling a data centric view room to breathe.

Margiin and padding changes as required to suit the left/right swap. Also judging by live adjusting CSS using browser inspector the "social" widget would need tweaking.

Another thought on the sidebar... Well two things... First off, when you click on, say, "Trivia", the sidebar menu shrinks down to just "Did You Know?" with a link to expand to show hidden sections... I think the menu should remain fully visible as now to jump from section to section in many cases needs two clicks instead of one.

Secondly whilst the selected option is highlighted in most cases (e.g. trivia, awards, technical specs) in some cases it is not (e.g. parents guide) which seems to be a bug?? Seems restricted to certain items in the "Storyline" group.

I recommend that the Watch Options be incorporated. On first thought, it might seem contrary to the "data-centric" theme, but as it turns out, there are tons of title entries improperly linked to the Amazon website, which upon discovery can be fixed by regular contributors. Being able to assess whether a link is or isn't established is thus important.

Not sure about anyone else, but now clicking on links to titles takes you to "www", instead of staying on m.imdb.com like clicking on names does. This defeats the purpose of trying to use the slimmed-down interface.

I have a suggestion for a change to the way TV seasons are displayed. On the series-level page, only the most recent season numbers and years are shown; it is necessary to click on "See All" to display other seasons.

How about reverting to the way that the old reference view did it, and list all the season numbers, as far back as the oldest (Season 1). It means fewer keypresses to get to an episode of a season that is not displayed.

Apart from that annoyance, I think the new reference view page has regained most of the functionality of the old one.

The only thing I miss is the one that has been extensively debated on another thread and has seemingly met with a brick wall: the episode cast list which listed every episode and its cast on a single page.

Watching Napoleon (1927) on Blu-ray, I noticed that the reference view is missing the extra details about running time.

The runtime, as displayed by Reference View:

As opposed to the "general" view:

Interestingly, the only runtime in the reference view, 240 minutes, isn't even mentioned in the general view, so I'd say both views needs a bit of work in this regard.

There should also be a link to "see full technical specs" in that section in the reference view. The reference view is also missing the additional details about Color, which can also be seen in the above pictures. As the view which is meant to give contributors the full details, these sections certainly need some work.

Taking up on the point that cartman_1337 has just made and "As the view which is meant to give contributors the full details", I'd say that the reference view should show *at least* as much information as any other view, and maybe more information. Someone early one moaned that reference view was going to duplicate other views - so it *should* do: it should be a superset of all other views.

By the way, I've just spotted something that's missing: the "credited as" attributes for companies such as Misc Companies are missing: you need to go to Update to confirm that they are all present in the form that they were submitted.

[It sounds like you may have accidentally opted-in to the title reference view which is a customized view of IMDb aimed at top contributors only. You can opt out by visiting https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general and ensuring the option "Show reference view with full cast and crew (advanced view)" is unchecked]

Okay. I don't remember what page I was looking at that had it without the camel case, but now I suspect that a contributor actually included "(credit only)" as a part of the role field. That's the most likely explanation for what I observed.

I know it might just be me, but currently, the rating says 8 if it is 8,0 and 8,1 if it is 8,1. Could you change it back to 8,0 if it is 8,0? I think it's not only more consistent, but also less ambiguous, because some people might think an 8 is a rounder number while an 8,0 shows them it's not.

Is there ever going to be an easy way to switch between the views without changing preferences? It seems like "change view" should do exactly that. Change the view of the page. I use mostly reference views but there are some things on the regular page that I like to see, like metascore and reviews. It sucks having to use another browser that I'm not logged into IMDb on in order to see this info.